lanhu_get_design_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states what the tool returns, not any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or modifies state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence in Chinese). It is concise but not structured for quick scanning. It does not front-load the core action or highlight key parameters. Could be more efficient for an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the return structure is documented separately. The description adequately states the high-level purpose but lacks details such as how fine-grained cutouts are specified or related to parameters. It is minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions in English (e.g., 'Output platform', 'Design exact name...'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states it returns complete design drawings and fine-grained downloadable resources (切图资源). Verb '返回' and resource '设计图与切图资源' are specific. It is not a tautology, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'lanhu_get_designs' which likely lists designs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'lanhu_get_designs' or 'lanhu_analyze_design'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.